{
  "question": "q51",
  "model_1": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "model_2": "claude-opus-5",
  "answer_a_was": "Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q6_K_XL",
  "answer_b_was": "claude-opus-5",
  "verdict_code": "TIE",
  "winner": "TIE",
  "judge_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "server_model": "openai/gpt-5.6-sol",
  "provider": "OpenAI",
  "finish_reason": "stop",
  "usage": {
    "prompt_tokens": 15179,
    "completion_tokens": 2111,
    "total_tokens": 17290,
    "cost": 0.158195,
    "is_byok": false,
    "prompt_tokens_details": {
      "cached_tokens": 0,
      "cache_write_tokens": 15176,
      "audio_tokens": 0,
      "video_tokens": 0
    },
    "cost_details": {
      "upstream_inference_cost": 0.158195,
      "upstream_inference_prompt_cost": 0.094865,
      "upstream_inference_completions_cost": 0.06333
    },
    "completion_tokens_details": {
      "reasoning_tokens": 1712,
      "image_tokens": 0,
      "audio_tokens": 0
    }
  },
  "eval_prompt_sha256": "7e58b951cb86e4deba3b60fd01e9b9bd247ebe9883e1c9e43b24acffb1fd4667",
  "report": "TIE, FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.\n\nBasis. Both answers direct Hallowmere to cancel the defective vote, preserve evidence, pay the vested allocation, remove materially interested partners, conduct an independent investigation, and use only proportionate interim restrictions while preserving Rafi’s response rights. Their differences do not establish a materially different, record-supported outcome for the firm.\n\n[B] rejected: escrow as an alternative to paying the $920,000 — cited authority says Rule 7 requires payment of earned allocations and the agreement establishes vesting.\n[B] rejected: email recipients are disqualified merely from knowledge of improper purpose and four clean votes are unattainable — record lacks the personal-interest and voter-alignment facts required for those conclusions.\n[B] rejected: only new post-report misconduct may support later expulsion — cited authority says protected status does not immunize independently proven misconduct, without a temporal limitation.\n[B] rejected: partners should not discuss the report, audit, or status with Rafi — internally inconsistent with the required investigation and meaningful opportunity to respond.\n\nFailed candidate: payment versus escrow — no-safe-neutralization element failed because ordinary verification resolves the inconsistency in favor of payment.\nFailed candidate: composition and size of the disinterested voting pool — record-support element failed.\nFailed candidate: treatment of independently proven pre-report misconduct — record-support element failed because no additional substantiating facts exist.\nFailed candidate: anti-retaliation no-contact instruction — no-safe-neutralization element failed because it is facially inconsistent with the required process.\nFailed candidate: 10–14 versus 14–21 days to respond — concrete-consequence element failed.\nFailed candidate: insurance notice, separate counsel, Upjohn warnings, and additional privilege analysis — record-support element failed.\nFailed candidate: differing interim-control details — concrete-consequence element failed because both require proportionate restrictions and continued access to response materials.\n\nHard stop. The sentence cannot be completed with a concrete, record-supported consequence.",
  "judge_reasoning": "",
  "_public_record": {
    "type": "published record",
    "policy": "../../PUBLIC_RECORD_POLICY.md",
    "transformations": [
      "non-substantive machine metadata normalized",
      "published-record annotation added"
    ]
  }
}